


"Listening to Fear".

by shadowkat67



Category: Doctor Who, Doctor Who & Related Fandoms, Doctor Who (2005)
Genre: Episode Related, Episode Review, Meta, Multi
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-09-15
Updated: 2014-09-15
Packaged: 2021-02-27 03:27:45
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,342
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/22380301
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/shadowkat67/pseuds/shadowkat67
Relationships: The Doctor & Clara Oswin Oswald





	"Listening to Fear".

I understand why two people thought of politics while watching _Listen_. Or related the episode to unrelated politics. (The other one was an American female, not a British male, as I original thought). It's due to the message, which is admittedly counter to what you would expect. At the end of the episode - Clara Oswald tells the Doctor that "fear is a good thing," repeating in a way what he told her and a young boy earlier in the episode - where he states that it provides adrenaline - a fight or flee response, making you super-powered for a bit. (Which is a good and bad thing - depends on what you do with it, who you are afraid of, and well the situation, I expect.) 

Clara states: "Fear can unite people in a cause and that can be a wonderous thing." Well, it depends. Sort of reminds me of a friend's statement about how the majority is seldom wrong. Hmmm. Again, it depends on the majority. Nazi Germany was wrong, and was united in fear. OTOH, the allies were right to fight them, and also united in fear of what the Nazi's and Japan intended. I think the focus in the sentence needs to be "CAN" that Fear "can" unite. It doesn't always. Sometimes.

But getting back to why I personally found it to be fascinating, and why it resonated for me on a certain level? Two things - first "LISTEN".The Doctor is told to LISTEN and tells others to LISTEN, but ironically, he doesn't listen. He spends a lot of time talking. Very rapidly. (I used to think this was a British thing, but I think it's just a Doctor thing.) And when he does listen he doesn't quite hear it clearly. He's baffled. I think one of the most ironic things about the information age - is that everyone is so busy talking, tweeting, texting, posting, etc that they aren't really reading or listening carefully to what is actually being said. We are in the age of scanning, skimming, and skipping. Too much information after all. We are distracted, too busy multi-tasking - watching tv while surfing the net, driving while talking on a phone, texting while watching a movie (really wish people would not do this). I certainly was distracted while watching Doctor Who, and later while attempting to watch Rectify (read a magazine, popped on the internet, went to the bathroom, did stretching exercises). And we have all these interruptions. If you are on the phone, someone buzzes in interrupting your conversation or your service clicks off. Or in person, you are chatting, and your friend or your own cell phone rings and of course you answer it - stopping the conversation or maybe during it, you sneak a quick text to Face Book or twitter. I've seen this happen in a lot of meetings. And if you are on the internet, reading this post - how much of it did you really read? I admit, I'm no better - I misread two posts in my scan, one I thought was about Doctor Who, was in reality about Marvel Agents of Shield (embarrassing). I need to stop skimming.

I remember on a fan board way back in 2003, a friend of mine wrote a comment in response to a poster about "writing carefully", and I thought afterwards, reading and listening carefully is equally important. If you don't, and you respond or not as the case may be - much chaos may ensue. We aren't passive when we read or listen. We do affect and change what is being said by our mere act of listening or not listening carefully. How we listen can change or influence what is actually said.

For example? I skimmed over several reviews on the Doctor Who episode _Listen_. I just read the blurbs, nothing beneath the cut, in order to avoid spoilers. Two of the posts I misread. One was discussing Marvel Agents of Shield not Doctor Who. The other stated, Doctor Who and unrelated politics. I went back tonight and read both - and upon doing so, understood better what I'd read. But before doing that, I posted on what I thought I'd read in my own journal in which I said two posts related Doctor Who to politics and didn't seem to like it that well - resulting in various comments and criticisms of those two posts - stating how in the heck could anyone link that episode to politics. Now, having watched the episode myself and re-read the posts - I see how not reading them carefully, yet commenting on them - caused confusion and chaos. This is a minor example of how we can screw things up by not listening or reading something carefully. Sabotaging ourselves, the original post, and others in the process - and spreading misunderstanding and confusion.

When we listen or read something we engage in a conversation. In a Slate article about film actors - which I posted about recently, the writer states that actors who listen well - are better than those who don't. They provide meaning to the words being said or a reaction, giving context to the scene and action. The Doctor in this episode LISTENS to Clara tell him as a small boy that fear is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is okay to be afraid, and he, in turn, imparts to Clara some of what she told him.

The other bit that resonated, and can be interpreted more than one way depending on what is going on with you at this moment in time, was the dialogue on FEAR. 

The episode has a clever twist. We are told a scary story by the Doctor about monsters beneath the bed. Something in the dark to fear. That we can't look at. And disappears when we do. The story is The Doctor's childhood nightmare. He is relating an old nightmare, of something grabbing him from underneath the bed. Of being afraid of the dark. A nightmare all children have. The twist is that it is actually Clara who had inadvertently grabbed his ankle as a child, while she was hiding beneath his bed. She'd traveled to his timeline by mistake, and had to cover her tracks. And it is Clara who tells the boyhood version of the Doctor that it is just a dream, to sleep, and that Fear is not a bad thing. It's okay to be scared. That it can motivate us to do things, unite us with others who are also afraid. (This is an early episode, I have a feeling these words are meant to be twisty and are going to come back and bite Clara later. Also they are unreliable - white lies adults tell children to sooth them. Note she similarly soothes Rupert with the soliders protecting his bed when he has a similar nightmare. So, I remain uncertain the extent we are meant to take these words to heart.)

To an extent, Clara's correct - fear can motivate us. It is a powerful thing. But it can equally paralyze. As it does Rupert on both the date with Clara, and as a small boy, and as it does with the Doctor, who as a small boy, hides crying in his bed, terrified. To help both boys overcome their paralysis, the Doctor and Clara talk about fear in a positive manner - stating how fear can provide adrenaline, bolster courage, protect you, save you, and unite you with others. But the reverse is true as well...and that belies the message. Both know this - considering went happened last season. Fear can also paralyze, cause horrible acts of violence, lynch mobs, and war. Rupert the Solider - who went to WAR and killed people, who cries now because of it. Or the Doctor who ran away with the Tardis, and has committed acts that he is ashamed of, out of fear. It's a double-edged sword fear. Fear is what created the Dalek's after all. Well that and hatred. Which is why I'm not sure how tongue firmly in cheek this message was meant to be.


End file.
